Quasi-judicial review power must be statutory, and an alternative remedy cannot bar writ relief against a void order.

A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the governing statute expressly confers that power; the Vice-Chancellor therefore lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier approval decision on the Principal's dismissal, and the review order was a nullity. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction; the writ petition was therefore maintainable. The Supreme Court quashed the review order, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed reinstatement of the Principal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Vice-Chancellor had power to review the earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the Principal. (ii) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the Vice-Chancellor had power to review the earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the Principal.

Analysis: The Vice-Chancellor acted in a quasi-judicial capacity while considering approval of the dismissal order. A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order unless such power is expressly conferred by the statute under which it acts. The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the Statutes of the University contained no such conferment of review power.

Conclusion: The review order was without jurisdiction and was a nullity.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

Analysis: Availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to refuse relief merely because a statutory reference remedy exists. Since the review order was a nullity, the writ petition remained maintainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned review order was quashed, the appellant was directed to be reinstated as Principal, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority has no power to review its own order unless the statute expressly provides for review, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief against an order passed wholly without jurisdiction.

---